Where did you read that I applied for, waited for or ever accepted food stamps ... ?!?
:roll:
I'm pointing out that you're basically calling asylum seekers "invaders" because they can qualify for safety nets faster than you did. I.e. your position is emotionally driven and irrational.
As to the strict standards to qualify for asylum in the US, one of them is spousal abuse in a foreign country.
Show up at an entry point with a shiner and claim your "husband" back in Timbuktu did that - and under our strict standards you stand a very good chance of being whisked in into the US of A.
Nope, wrong. Totally wrong.
There is no blanket approval for victims of domestic violence. The victim needs to show that they are threatened by persecution in their home nation on the basis of religion, political views, race, nationality, or social group affiliation -- and that the government isn't doing anything to protect the affected group(s). Further, the applicant has to prove that their home government is unwilling or unable to protect them from their abuser.
Thus, the applicant can't just say "my husband beat me up, let me stay in the US." The applicant has to prove that the abuse is linked to their race, or religion, or social affiliation,
and that the government won't do anything about it. (E.g. "I'm a Sunni Muslim, my husband is a Christian, he beats me because of my religion, and I went to the police and filed a report and they refused to help me because I'm a Sunni." Then you have to find a way to prove it to the courts.)
Oh, and don't forget that Jeff Sessions tried to eliminate protections on the basis of domestic violence, a move that is tied up in the courts.
Here is a reader for you of the abuse of our welfare programs by the invaders:
CIS?
Seriously? You do know they are a rabid anti-immigrant organization, founded by a white nationalist, who believes that the US should be a “a European-American majority” society? If you didn't immigrate from Europe, then CIS doesn't want you here.
How are their results biased? Let us count the ways.
• "Non-citizen" includes legal residents (green card holder etc), not exclusively undocumented immigrants (who don't qualify for most benefits)
• They select households where the
"head of household" is a non-citizen -- e.g. in a conveniently unidentified number of cases, it's the children born in the US who are US citizens, and thus are eligible for and collect benefits.
• They include EITC as "welfare" (it's a tax credit, that you only get when you pay federal taxes on your wages).
• They point out that those non-citizen permanent residents
were in the US long enough to qualify (i.e. there goes your "5 years!" whining).
• If I'm reading it correctly, they excluded Social Security. Hmmm.
• Oddly enough, they didn't quantify whether native-born or non-citizen immigrants received
more or less in benefits.
Other than that, what they are really saying is that most non-citizen immigrants are not well educated, and poor. I hate to break this to you, but that's not a crime, and it's not a reason to deny someone benefits.
It also doesn't change the basic fact that, as previously mentioned,
safety nets in the US suck. No one is getting rich off of food stamps in the US.
